In Baldwin v Brighton and Hove City Council the EAT considered the meaning of "treats" for the purposes of treating a person less favourably than a comparator under section 2A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It held that it is not sufficient to show that a respondent "would have" treated the claimant in a less favourable way, the treatment in question must actually take place. It also held that the authorities on the implied term of mutual trust and confidence established that it was enough for an employer's conduct to be likely to destroy trust and confidence; the employee did not have to show that the employer intended it to do so.